We’re PLEDGE DRIVINGr! If you’re a fan of this blog, please help fund its continued existence by clicking the button below. THANKS!
There are two things that every antifeminist believes in like gravity:
- Feminist men only pretend to be feminist in order to get laid
- They fail at this because no woman wants to have sex with a feminist man
A new(ish) study from two researchers at Canada’s McMaster University suggests that the antifeminists are full of it:
Not only do feminist men have sex, they have more sex than non-feminist men, and, in line with their general respect for women, appear to care more about the sexual satisfaction of their partners, going down on women more often and fondling their boobs. Reports suggest that sex-having women tend to enjoy both of these activities.
According to Max Stick, a doctoral candidate in sociology, and Tina Fetner, chair of the sociology department,
This study explores … the relationship between feminist identification and sexual behavior. In heterosexual encounters, do feminist men report having sex more recently than those who do not call themselves feminists? During sexual encounters, do feminist men behave differently than non-feminists? In particular, do feminist men organize their sexual behavior in a way that prioritizes their partners’ sexual pleasure to a greater extent than non-feminists?
Their answer? An unequivocal yes means yes.
Using representative survey data of Canadian adults, we examine the self-reported sexual behavior of heterosexual Canadian men. We find that self-identifying feminist men report having sex more recently and are more likely to report engaging in breast stimulation and performing oral sex on their partners than non-feminists.
In an article for The Conversation, Stick explains that
In private sexual encounters, feminist men and those ambivalent toward feminism, perform sexual behaviours targeting women’s pleasure at a higher rate than those disavowing feminism, suggesting these men may care about their partners as expressed through the performance of equality in sexual pleasure. …
Feminist men help transcend sexual (interaction) inequality by bridging the gender gap in orgasms.
It kind of makes sense that men who actually like and respect women would do more to please their sexual partners than men who hate feminism and, often, women in general.
But feminist men don’t ignore their own sexual desires in their attempts to please women. Stick notes that
While feminist men reported giving oral sex to their partners more recently, they also engaged in intercourse and received oral sex more recently than non-feminist men, suggesting they do not sacrifice their own pleasure.
So, IN YOUR FACE, ANTIFEMINISTS.
As you may imagine, this study has not been received warmly in the antifeminists subredddit. After one user recently posted a link to Stick’s article, it inspired an assortment of irate and oblivious comments that inadvertently revealed why antifeminists are likely shit in bed.
Nishuu-j217, who started the thread, declared indignantly that
It’s so damn clear what the purpose of these articles actually is. They will liter do anything to turn men into simps.
Some, ignoring the findings altogether, simply repeated the old antifeminist dogma. According to a commenter called Pingayaso , in the top comment in the thread,
That’s why simps are simps, since they’re unable to be liked by women, they have to rely on the misandrist narrative to impress some feminist and wait for a crumb.
Spoiler alert, it doesn’t work
“”Lol any normal man knows 100 percent that this is cap but ok,” BS-Calrissian insisted.
Vasekgamescz seemed a bit dizzy:
They honestly think we are so dumb as to fall prey to classic bait of playing with our primitive instincts deeply imbeded in all of us, just to become a simp for misandry driven women, and would probably never actually get even close to having sex, instead going in circles of mindlessly following commands in hopes of getting some. wow.
Wow indeed.
Some suggested that the feminist men in the survey were actually having sex “[w]ith other men and their hands. For sure.”
Quizzii echoed this implicit homphobia:
Yeah but taking huge dillos in the ass is not the best sex ootion you can dream of as a male…
Just_some_guy8484 insisted that
Even if the assertion of the title of the article is true, which I’m pretty sure statistics prove that it is demonstrably false, the sex feminist men are having is not, in my opinion, the kind of sex they or anyone really would want anyways. Basically, most hard-core feminist women I know are not attractive people physically. People who sacrifice their sexual standards to procure sex have some seriously low self-esteem and virtually no individual character at all.
One commenter had a more imaginative vision of feminist sex. According to Massive_Pressure_516
They probably count hiding in a closet and jacking off to your wife getting inseminated by a stranger as sex.
(Note: They don’t.)
Still others insisted that sex that puts women’s needs first, or even equally, was pretty sour, as in grapes. ” I still ain’t going to degrade myself just for sex lol,” wrote ExMuzzy.
Added ShiZniT3:
male feminists have more sex because they are treated like obedient pets with benefits. that level of degradation is not worth the sex… rule34 is proof of that.
(Note: the study found this to be untrue. It’s almost as if no one in the discussion actually bothered to read Stick’s article.)
PsychologicalItem353 insisted that it was unfair to men to have “to push beyond their natural limits in order to please women every day,” as if finding the clit was some sort of Sisyphean torture.
In a followup comment, he declared that
honestly I don’t give a damn about sex. … haha I’m sorry for not wanting to push beyond to please a woman every time she wants to have sex and when I’m done I’m drained of my energy. Yeah it takes work in a relationship but sorry I’m not going to drive through till she is satisfied. Knowing if I do so I’m going to feel like shit when done. You wouldn’t want to do that right? So men shouldn’t have to do so and knowing the repercussions.
I’m sure the women of the world feel absolutely bereft at his absence from the sexual arena.
Large-Victory apparently thought he was bringing some good sense to the discussion:
See it’s totally fine for making your girl to oragsm. The thing here is some men do anything to get a pussy, just like what I used to be, and it’s dangerous thing and pulls many men into resentment and anger if things don’t work out in their way.
But my favorte exchange was this one, between the thread-starter and a much-downvoted feminist who was there to argue with the crowd:
![Beatplayer -4 points 1 day ago
It’s almost as if liking women is a pre-requisite of fucking them…
🤷♀️
permalinkembedunsavereportgive awardreply
[–]Nishuu-j217[S] 3 points 1 day ago
No it isn't. If that were the case then the most misandrist feminist women would keep their ugly asses away from men. However, when a feminist sluts around and acquires a body count of 50 everyone says that don't slutshame her. She's eMpOwErInG herself bY oWnInG hEr SeXuAlItY.
permalinkembedunsaveparentreportgive awardreply
[–]Beatplayer 0 points 1 day ago
I genuinely can’t imagine why women won’t sleep with you.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-12_15-49-42.png?resize=580%2C631&ssl=1)
IT IS INDEED A MYSTERY!
###
@Alan
Nice to see you too. You are clever and interesting as always.
Tells everyone else to cope, can’t cope himself. How typical.
FYI David has emailed me informing that the troll has been banned. YAY.
@Alan:
I’m late but HA!
Yes, yes I did find that amusing. Thanks for sharing.
@Battering Lamb
Yes, but because of my dance and athletic experience it’s not so bad. I made mine myself but with the advice of a costumer in the area who cosplays. The shoe (with heel removed of course) that’s the basis gives me a fair amount of support. It requires a lot of ankle strength because my weight is on my toes but I have that from dance and from working out. My knees are bent so it requires a lot of quadricep strength and endurance but with that and some practice I’m well balanced. The main issue is having enough stability to do some of the particular bullwhip cracks that I want to do in a particular situation depending on what’s going on in that specific interaction or conversation. Still just carrying the whip and looking threatening with it often has the effect I want. The other challenge is that I wear full body latex bodypaint over everything and it takes a lot of care to get the layering right so that there’s a natural looking visual with no abrupt visual transition from hooves to my calves (because the latex makes muscle tone more noticeable…that’s *good* for effect but makes it require a lot of care to get the look right so my hooves are “blended” in.) Also the latex coming off and back onto the shoe part each time I’m in this will eventually mess up that material but that’s ok because I can make a second set.
I do look otherworldly, scary and sexy as all hell all at once though so it’s totally worth it.
henataiartist, declares that we’re dealing in incel stereotype, then proceeds to exemplify every stereotype. he’s banned.
@ TyrantBitchGoddessStacey
As somebody who hung out with theatre majors in college (and yes, of course that meant helping out with sets whenever they needed an extra pair of hands to “hold this” or give my reaction to makeup effects), I find your descriptions of your costuming fascinating. Thank you for sharing!
@ Victorious Parasol
Sorry to hear about all that. Good luck. As you said, odds are good.
@ Room in general, concerning our now departed troll:
When I first saw the quote held up by the troll about English, I thought he brought in that quote as an attempt to appear deep, as though he has more “culture”, thinks on a deeper level than mere humans.
That is par for the course for conspiracy theorists and such, wanting to feel special and in on secrets everyone else denies. Then I reread Victorious Parasol’s post and was disappointed. He couldn’t even manage to be that interesting.
@ .45
The guy probably doesn’t even know there’s a difference between “illumine” and “illuminate” and may’ve even assumed I’d committed a typo.
“The guy probably doesn’t even know there’s a difference between “illumine” and “illuminate”
I didn’t knew the difference, I admit it.
@ TyrantBitchGoddessStacey
Really? BRB, need to get painting.
But to digress, have you ever seen the film Under The Skin? I’d be interested in your thoughts if you have.
@Alan
I’m also interested in what Stacy thinks of the film, but IMO that it was written and directed by men shows heavily, especially in the ending. Cis dudes need to stop writing our stories and controlling our narratives.
Edit: if anyone wants to look it up or watch it, be warned it has graphic depictions of violence (incl. sexual) against women and children.
I find the misogynists’ reactions everything from laughable to (yes) deplorable. However, feminist men are, in fact, humans, so as such I don’t trust their reportage to be accurate; I say so because I’ve long concluded that (for example) a lot of U.S. parents know enough to _say_ that they value education but their attitudes toward school funding and the level of respect they show teachers seem to belie that.
Feminist men, in particular, know what to say—_I_ certainly do, and I know that I have to work to make sure that what I say I value matches my actions. I’d certainly like to believe that these men are accurately describing themselves, but it would be good if their partners as well had been asked about the men’s levels of consideration and ability to please.
@Stacey: Thank you for sharing. That was very informative. I find such aspects of character/costume design very interesting, as well as how that afffects and strains ones muscles and poses.
@Cyborgette: I have recommended to all my single ladies to find them a nice nerd boy for decades. The ones who have, have thanked me. Another good point they have: attention to detail, which is important during sex!
@Vicky P: I hope it all comes back negative. Yes, the waiting is awful. Kudos to Mr. P.
@Goddess Stacy: Your latest incarnation sounds even more amazing! Although my skin’s itching just thinking about all the latex.
@Alan: I am boggled by your knowledge of Cold War birbs. But wouldn’t they have had to periodically dig up the bombs and replace the chickens and feed?
@ gss ex-noob
Unfortunately it seems the chickens weren’t getting out whatever happened.
Once armed the bombs could be triggered in three ways. Remotely; if they were tampered with; on an 8 day timer. The unclassified document doesn’t suggest any way the bomb could be disarmed once activated; the anti tamper system was pretty robust.
I have seen a reference though to the idea that once the chickens had gone to the great coop in the sky, then the electronics would freeze and the bomb become inoperable. That implies the timer could be overridden. Which does make sense.
In the event they only built two of the planned ten bombs before it was realised the German people might prefer not to be nuked by their own side.
Chicken coup is what US Republicans appear to be practicing to pull off nowadays.
I can only presume this arrangement was considered viable because these was no easy technical solution for a maintenance-free heating system? I presume this was before the development of compact nuclear batteries. Maybe it was easiest to store heating energy for several years in chicken feed. Though in any case, you’d presumably need some electricity to run the chicken’s feed dispenser and ventilation, provide them some light etc. Not to mention the bomb’s own electronics.
But could you predict a safe temperature for disarming the bomb? It doesn’t even get much cold in Germany. Could you initiate early cooling by cutting off ventilation for the chicken (sorry, I’m overthinking)? And how to prevent saboteurs from attacking the vents?
I can see only one possible good side in nuclear landmines, as opposed to nuclear missiles or whatever: You could place them near the enemy border without de facto building offensive potential, which could further escalate the arms race. (Insert joke about playing chicken here.)
Came to see how you were all doing with batting around our latest chewtoy, only to find that he was a dull, meme-spouting dipshit who got banned pretty quickly. 1/10, boring troll is boring. I was almost looking forward to having one to kick around.
@Stacey
Hooves? Do you dress up like a Satyr or something? Do you have a blog where you post pics of these things? Either way, I like hearing about it, you have such an interesting hobby.
@Alan
Aww, poor chickens. There are better ways to utilize them for warfare. Actual chicken bombs might’ve been more effective and slightly less deadly to the chickens.
That comic reminds me of this:
https://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=52
@ lumipuna
The mines were essentially sealed units. The idea was they could be buried or just hidden in rivers. The bomb housing was overpressured. So not only were the poor chickens to be blown up; they would also have got the bends. But that was part of the anti tamper mechanism. If you breached the housing, barometric tiggers would detonate the bomb.
The chicken heating element was quite crude. Basically just throw a bunch of chickens in there with 8 days supply of food and water.
There’s a nice little article in this magazine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150218044754/http://www.strategyandtacticspress.com/library-files/ST232-Web.pdf
As for military potential, one can see why using nuclear weapons for area denial was attractive. We now know though that the CCCP planned to use nuclear weapons themselves and attack through irradiated battlefields. So we didn’t need the chickens anyway.
More here on “Seven Days to the River Rhine” as the plan was called.
@ queen of the harpies
I like that! I would wonder why there’s such a trope of revolutionary chickens; but we do put them through a lot.
But now I can see a Cold War prequel to Chicken Run!
VP best wishes for best of luck. Good to know you have a live-in caring shoulder to lean on when needed.
Alan. Love, love, love that judgment. I always like to see courts, tribunals, magistrates and whoever else give a neat summary of all the current relevant laws and legal opinions in one coherent opinion.
Alan – I read the article and it does make some sense. Though couldn’t they really use a battery-powered heater for one week? Or even combustion heater? How much heat could the chicken even produce on a trapped air supply before dying from CO2 poisoning?
Regarding Cold War games between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact,
Finland, while a western democracy, was in 1948 pressured into signing a semi-WP style agreement with the USSR. This sought to ensure that Finland would remain neutral in conflicts, and in particular would resist any attempts of “Germany or its allies” to attack the USSR using Finnish territory. This was mainly seen as relevant for the Norway-Finland-Russia border area in the far north. The agreement suggested that, depending on the current threat level, the USSR could “negotiate” on whether it was necessary to send in Soviet troops to help Finland defend itself.
This “friendship” agreement and its language was quite well known for the older Finnish generation. I once saw a comedian joke about the prospect of “Germany and its allies using Finnish territory to attack Austria”. That’s an absurdist dismissal on one level (based on geography) but also a double entendre (In Finnish, as in German, Austria is literally called “Eastern Reich”).
So now that the latest troll has been banned, what incel-typical thing will he do next?
This one seemed very Option 3 to me.
@ lumipuna
Hopefully that one wouldn’t get past the ethics committee.